According to a report furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company made full payment of the settlement amount in June.

Although subject to court approval, the Company expressed optimism that it will receive the nod.

The suit was first filed in February 1996 against Adobe, certain of its officers and directors, certain former officers of Adobe and Frame Technology Corporation, Hambrecht Quist, LLP, investment banker for Frame, and certain employees, in connection with the drop in the price of Adobe stock following its announcement of financial results for the quarter ended December 1, 1995.

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara.

Adobe Systems, Inc. is the maker of Photoshop, Illustrator, and PageMaker, the leading desktop publishing software in the market today.

BOMARK CLEANING: Sued By Janitors Seeking Back Wages, Others----------------------------------------------------------------Bomark Cleaning Services faces a class action lawsuit filed by six janitors seeking lost wages and employment in the higher-paying jobs they say they were denied, The Chicago Tribune reported late last week.

Pending in a federal court, the lawsuit claims that the Company steered female workers into low-paying jobs.

The plaintiffs, composed of 5 women and 1 man, alleged that women were given work as low-paid cleaners but men got higher-paying jobs operating equipment used to clean floors.

No specific amount of damages was indicated in the complaint.

The cleaning services company employs more than 300 janitors, mostly Polish and Latino immigrants, the newspaper said.

BSQUARE CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Commences S.D. NY Securities Suit -----------------------------------------------------------------------Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of BSQUARE Corporation (Nasdaq: BSQR) securities during the period between October 19, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges the following defendants with violations of Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder:

CACHEFLOW INC.: To Mount Vigorous Defense Against NY Securities Suits---------------------------------------------------------------------CacheFlow, Inc. announced recently that it would mount a vigorous defense against three securities suit currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In a report to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company said it is a victim of a rash of lawsuits that involve 50 companies with "virtually identical" allegations.

Records at the Class Action Reporter show that the law offices of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP; Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP; and Marc S. Henzel have pending suits against the Company.

The Complaints in these cases generally allege that the underwriters obtained excessive and undisclosed commissions in connection with the allocation of shares of common stock in the Company's initial public offering.

Accordingly, this was done to maintain artificially high market prices through tie-in arrangements that required customers to buy shares in the after-market at pre-determined prices.

The complaints allege that the company and its current and former officers and directors violated Sections 11, 12(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) (Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934.

"We anticipate that further lawsuits making substantially similar allegations may be filed," the Company said in its SEC report.

CacheFlow designs and assembles computers that store and automatically update frequently requested Web sites, providing quick access from a cache rather than an originating server.

Company intranets and Internet service providers (ISPs) use CacheFlow's appliances to increase efficiency. E-commerce customers use them to speed response times and handle traffic surges.

CALDERA SYSTEMS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit In S.D. New York---------------------------------------------------------------------Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed late last week a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Caldera Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ:CALD) between March 21, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The action, captioned Weinroth v. Caldera Systems, Inc. et al., No. 01-CV-6597 is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York against defendants Caldera, FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., Ransom H. Love and Alan Hansen.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

CELLSTAR CORPORATION: To Mount Defense If Dismissal Motion Is Denied--------------------------------------------------------------------While speculating on the outcome of a motion filed last year, CellStar Corporation recently announced it would mount a vigorous defense if the federal court in Miami dismisses its motion to dismiss a consolidated securities suit.

"The Company believes that it is has fully complied with all applicable securities laws and regulations and that it has meritorious defenses to the allegations made in the Second Amended and Consolidated Complaint," said a recent regulatory document filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company filed the motion on November 2, 2000, but the Court has not yet rendered a decision.

The leading global wholesale cellular phone distributor stands trial in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The company distributes phones and accessories made by Ericsson, NEC, Nokia, QUALCOMM, and Motorola to retailers, carriers, exporters, and dealers. It has retail stores in Latin America, Europe, and Asia.

CEPHALON INC.: Says Adverse Ruling In Suits Won't Have Material Effect----------------------------------------------------------------------Cephalon, Inc. said recently that even if an adverse judgment is promulgated against it in several pending cases involving its MYOTROPHIN product, such judgment would not have a material effect on the Company.

In a recent regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company revealed that it is facing several suits from plaintiffs who did not participate in a 1999 class settlement.

The suits allege that the Company is liable under common law for misrepresentations concerning the results of the clinical trials, and that certain of its current and former officers and directors are liable for the actions of persons who allegedly traded the Company's common stock on the basis of material inside information.

Hoovers.com describes the Company as one who "just wants a chance to get ahead by helping others stay awake."

The company sells Provigil, a treatment for the sleep disorder narcolepsy licensed from Laboratoire L. Lafon. It markets the drug in Australia, Ireland, the UK, and the US.

Cephalon's drug development activities focus on neurodegenerative diseases, including Parkinson's disease and ALS (also known as Lou Gehrig's disease), as well as cancer and sleep disorders.

CHORDIANT SOFTWARE: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit In S.D. NY----------------------------------------------------------------------Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Chordiant Software, Inc. (Nasdaq: CHRD) securities during the period between February 14, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges the following defendants with violations of Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder:

CLARENT CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Suit In S.D. New York---------------------------------------------------------------------Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Clarent Corp. (Nasdaq: CLRN) from July 1, 1999 through December 6, 2000, inclusive.

COMPAQ COMPUTER: Agrees To Settle Faulty Internal Computer Parts Suit---------------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Hagens Berman announced recently that Compaq Computer Corporation has agreed to settle a class action, offering to reimburse customers who complained about faulty internal components in their computers, the Reuters News Agency reported.

According to the report, the settlement provides for the payment of up to $360 in cash or rebates of up to $540 to reimburse qualified class members for new components.

The law firm said that the settlement covers owners of some Presario-model computers living in the states of Washington, Texas, North Carolina, Illinois and California.

A separate rebate of between $50 and $110 would be paid to qualifying Presario owners who did not purchase replacement parts, the law firm said.

The settlement lists certain Presario models manufactured during the second half of 1996 and all of 1997, the report said.

Compaq vies with Dell to be the world's No. 1 PC maker and it's the third-largest computer company behind IBM and Hewlett-Packard.

CONNECTICUT STATE: Sued For "Strip-Search" Policy In Juvenile Centers---------------------------------------------------------------------A federal lawsuit against the State of Connecticut is seeking class action status over its practice to strip-search juveniles being held in detention centers, The Hartford Courant reported.

The suit claims that the procedure violates certain constitutional rights and well-established law prohibiting strip-searches of adults charged with minor crimes, unless there is reasonable suspicion.

Lawyer Anthony Wallace, who represents the two girls who were strip-searched in the State's New Haven detention center, doesn't understand why the rules for children in the State is different.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court in New Haven, seeking an injunction to have the practice stopped at the state's centers in New Haven, Hartford and Bridgeport.

Hearing is scheduled for the fall.

CRITICAL PATH: Cauley Geller Begins Securities Suit In S.D. New York--------------------------------------------------------------------Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Critical Path, Inc. (Nasdaq: CPTH) securities during the period between March 29, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges the following defendants with violations of Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder:

EXODUS COMMUNICATIONS: Cauley Geller Files Suit In N.D. California------------------------------------------------------------------Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Exodus Communications, Inc. (Nasdaq: EXDS) common stock during the period between March 30, 2000 and June 20, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint charges Exodus and certain of its officers and directors with violating the federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business and financial condition.

GENCORP INC.: Says Retirees' Lawsuit Currently In Discovery-----------------------------------------------------------GenCorp Inc. recently disclosed in its regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it is currently engaged in discovery on a case involving its retirees.

In the same SEC report, the company also expressed optimism on the outcome of the case, which accordingly will not have a material impact on its financial position or results of operations.

Wotus, et al. v. GenCorp Inc. is pending in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Ohio.

The case was filed in October last year by a group of hourly retirees seeking rescission or modification of the current Hourly Retiree Medical Plan established in spring 1994 by the Company or reinstatement of pre-1994 benefit plan terms.

The crux of this dispute relates to the payment of benefit contributions by retirees as a result of the cost caps implemented in the fall of 1993.

Benefit contributions had been delayed until January 1, 2000 pursuant to a moratorium negotiated with the United Rubber Workers of America (URW) and its successor, the United Steelworkers of America (USWA), as well as from savings generated by Plan sponsored networks.

A failure to pay contributions results in a termination of benefits.

The class representatives consist of three hourly retirees from theJeannette, Pennsylvania facility of OMNOVA Solutions Inc. (OMNOVA), the company spun-off from GenCorp on October 1, 1999 and one hourly retiree from GenCorp's former Akron tire plant.

The putative class encompasses all eligible hourly retirees formerly represented by the URW or USWA.

The Unions, however, are not party to the suit, and have agreed not to support such litigation pursuant to Memoranda of Agreement negotiated with GenCorp.

The retirees also challenge the creation of the OMNOVA Plan, which has terms identical to the prior GenCorp Plan, without retiree approval.

GenCorp prevailed in a similar class action filed in 1995, arising at its Wabash, Indiana location.

A motion to dismiss on "res judicata" grounds was recently denied.

The GenCorp and OMNOVA insurance carriers have been advised of this litigation and have agreed to reimburse litigation expenses, subject to deductibles, but have asserted a reservation of rights as to damages.

Once a tire company, GenCorp is now best known for its aerospace and defense systems subsidiary, Aerojet.

GenCorp also operates an automotive segment that makes components used to seal vehicle windows, doors, and other openings.

The company has spun off its polymer products and building products businesses under the name OMNOVA Solutions.

IMMUNE RESPONSE: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit In S.D. New York---------------------------------------------------------------------Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Immune Response Corporation (Nasdaq: IMNR) common stock during the period between May 17, 1999 and July 6, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint charges Immune Response and certain of its officers and directors with violating the federal securities laws.

INTERNAP NETWORK: Wolf Haldenstein Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY--------------------------------------------------------------------Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of InterNAP Network Services Corporation (Nasdaq: INAP) between September 29, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The suit names as defendants InterNAP, certain of its officers and directors, and its underwriters.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling InterNAP common stock pursuant to the September 29, 1999 IPO without disclosing to investors that some of the underwriters in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors.

NETWORK PLUS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit In S.D. New York---------------------------------------------------------------------Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Network Plus Corporation (Nasdaq: NPLS) between June 29, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The suit names the following as defendants: Network Plus, certain of its officers and directors, and its underwriters.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling Network Plus common stock pursuant to the June 29, 1999 IPO without disclosing to investors that some of the underwriters in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

For more information, contact: Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder Relations at Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-1414 or by E-mail: PSSI@bernlieb.com

RHYTHMS NETCONNECTIONS: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Suit In S.D. NY--------------------------------------------------------------------Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Rhythms Netconnections, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: RTHM) from April 6, 1999 through December 6, 2000, inclusive.

In a report that came out in the Class Action Reporter last Friday, five present or former customers of the Rogers@Home Internet provider filed the suit in Ontario, alleging that the Company agreed to provide unlimited access to the Internet and did not give refunds or credits when that service was interrupted.

The National Post said Rogers Cable President and CEO John Tory has downplayed the suit, saying the action is without merit and will be contested.

Rogers Cable, Inc. is a subsidiary of Rogers Communications, Inc., Canada's No.1 cable TV operator with some 2.4 million subscribers throughout New Brunswick, Newfoundland, and Ontario, and it owns more than 240 video stores.

The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York against defendants SilverStream, Morgan Stanley & Co., Incorporated, BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., David A. Litwack, Craig A. Dynes and David R. Skok.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

SIPEX CORPORATION: Faruqi & Faruqi Begins Lawsuit In Massachusetts------------------------------------------------------------------Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all purchasers of Sipex Corp. (Nasdaq:SIPX) common stock between July 20, 2000 and January 11, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal securities laws by, among other things, issuing a series of materially false and misleading press releases concerning Sipex's financial condition and business prospects.

SOLECTRON CORPORATION: Welcomes Dismissal Of Federal Securities Suits---------------------------------------------------------------------Solectron Corporation celebrated victory over its legal battles as a federal court in California dismissed with prejudice six federal securities suits against a subsidiary.

The Class Action Reporter learned from a latest regulatory document filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that subsidiary involved was SMART Modular Technologies, Inc.

The suits had been pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California since 1998.

The plaintiffs allege that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions during the period from July 1, 1997 through May 21, 1998 in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

High-tech giants including Ericsson (13% of sales), Cisco Systems (12%), and IBM outsource production to Solectron to cut their own costs.

SOLECTRON CORPORATION: State Plaintiffs Want "Stay Order" Lifted----------------------------------------------------------------Solectron Corporation disclosed in the same SEC report referred to above that plaintiffs in the State securities suit have notified the Company of their intent to have the stay of the state action lifted. This news came following the dismissal of the federal securities actions.

The State action was filed in October 1998 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda.

It alleges violations of Sections 25400 and 25500 of the California Corporations Code and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of SMART common stock during the period from July 1, 1997 through May 21, 1998.

The factual allegations of the State complaint are nearly identical to the factual allegations contained within the federal complaint.

On February 22, 1999, the Superior Court granted SMART's motion to stay the state action pending resolution of the federal action.

SONY CORPORATION: Only 55 Of 98 Suits Opposed To FTC Deal Prospered-------------------------------------------------------------------Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. announced recently that of the 98 purported class actions arising from a May 2000 agreement reached by the Company with the Federal Trade Commission, only 55 proceeded to the federal courts.

The arrangement prohibited the adoption of any minimum advertised pricing program for seven years and from entering into any agreement with a dealer to control or maintain the resale price of any Sony product.

Subsequent to the announcement of this arrangement, 98 purported class actions, alleging violations of U.S. federal and state antitrust laws as well as various state unfair competition laws, were filed against Sony Music and other record companies in state and federal courts across the U.S.

Total damages sought cannot currently be determined, although certain of the suits have set forth specific monetary damages of up to 500 million U.S. dollars, before trebling, the Company said.

Only 55 were eventually brought in federal courts.

One of these was voluntarily dismissed, and the remaining cases have been consolidated for coordinated pretrial proceedings under the caption In re: Compact Disc Minimum Advertised Price Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1361.

This consolidated suit also includes approximately 45 additional actions alleging price fixing and unfair competition brought by various states' attorneys general.

In March 2001, defendants' motion to dismiss the attorneys general's complaints in MDL Docket No. 1361 was denied, and defendants' motion to dismiss the private plaintiffs' complaint was granted in part.

Defendants have since answered the complaints, the court has entered a comprehensive scheduling order, and discovery is underway on both class and merits issues.

SOUTHWIN INC.: Court Upholds Award To Owners Of Substandard Homes-----------------------------------------------------------------A divided 3rd District Appellate Court In Florida upheld a $5.2 million award to owners of 67 substandard homes marketed to victims of Hurricane Andrew in 1993 and 1994.

The court handed the decision earlier last week, according to the Naples Daily News.

Along with Southwin Inc., the developer of the housing project, builder Tripp Construction, Inc. will share the burden of paying the award.

Hurricane Andrew ravaged Florida in 1992.

Following the calamity, many homes were marketed to hurricane victims. Later, buyers complained of widespread water leaks and found unbraced roofs, use of inferior lumber and loose anchor bolts that are designed to hold the walls to the foundation.

UNDERWRITERS LITIGATION: Milberg Weiss Sues Goto.com IPO Underwriters---------------------------------------------------------------------Milberg Weiss Announces Class Action Suit Against Six Underwriters in Connection with the Initial Public Offering of Goto.com, Inc.Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed late last week a class action lawsuit, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Goto.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOTO) between June 18, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York against defendants Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, Lehman Brothers, Inc. and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

WESTELL TECHNOLOGIES: Pending Suits' Outcomes Could Create Problems -------------------------------------------------------------------Westell Technologies, Inc. disclosed in a recent regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it is unsure about the outcome of securities and antitrust suits pending in Delaware and Illinois.

"We cannot predict what the outcome of these lawsuits will be. It is possible that we may be required to pay substantial damages or settlement costs in excess of our insurance coverage, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operation," the Company said.

"Any verdict against us could harm our business," the SEC report added.

In fiscal 2000, Westell Technologies, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors were named in a consolidated class action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The case alleges generally that the defendants violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws by allegedly issuing material false and misleading statements and/or allegedly omitting material facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading thereby allegedly inflating the price of Westell stock for certain time periods.

Two derivative actions have been filed against certain of Westell's officers and directors in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware, New Castle County.

Certain of the officers and directors of Westell were also named in another derivative action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that the defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions, misappropriated corporate information, and breached their fiduciary duties to Westell's shareholders.

In addition, certain of the officers and directors of Westell were named in a derivative action filed in the Circuit Court of Kane County,Illinois.

Westell Technologies, through subsidiary Westell, Inc., makes equipment that bridges the gap between the newer fiber-optic infrastructure and the "last mile" of existing copper wire networks.

The company's modems, routers, and other products use DSL technology to enable high-speed data transmission over copper wires.

WIRELESS FACILITIES: Lovell and Sirota Law Firms File Suit In S.D. NY---------------------------------------------------------------------The law firms of Lovell & Stewart, LLP and Sirota & Sirota, LLP filed late last week a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Wireless Facilities, Inc. (Nasdaq:WFII) between November 4, 1999 and June 1, 2001, inclusive.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Section 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC thereunder and seeks to recover damages.

For more information, contact: Lovell & Stewart, LLP, New York through Christopher Lovell, Victor E. Stewart or Christopher J. Gray by Phone: 212/608-1900 or by E-mail: sklovell@aol.com or contact: Sirota & Sirota, LLP, New York through Howard B. Sirota or Saul Roffe by Phone: 212/425-9055 or by E-mail: info@sirotalaw.com

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail.Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 301/951-6400.